- From: Bob Freund <bob@freunds.com>
- Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2007 17:57:09 -0400
- To: "Anish Karmarkar" <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>, "Richard Salz" <rsalz@us.ibm.com>
- Cc: "WS-Addressing" <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>
Maybe they are, but the WS-Addressing WG is not the place IMO for that to be developed since, beyond other things, I think it exceeds our scope and our level of understanding or influence to describe potentially conflicting policies. I note also that this issue was raised in the WS-Policy WG and closed with no action. Thanks -bob > -----Original Message----- > From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ws-addressing- > request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Anish Karmarkar > Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2007 3:18 PM > To: Richard Salz > Cc: WS-Addressing > Subject: Re: Need for new Rec or TR on attaching policy to EPR > > > I certainly agree with that: dangers and concerns exists and should be > documented. > > -Anish > -- > > Richard Salz wrote: > > Anish, > > > > I'm not saying that they're all not useful and valid things to do > > (although I admit I can't see why putting a WSDL in an EPR is > useful), I > > am just pointing out that there are dangerous, and non-obvious, > security > > concerns. Any document that gets written should at least explain > them. > > /r$ > > -- > > STSM > > Senior Security Architect > > DataPower SOA Appliances > >
Received on Wednesday, 4 April 2007 21:57:24 UTC